Tuesday, 20 August 2013

New For (two month) Old Replacement

Temporary traffic lights (again).

Broken section after only two months

Today the new crossing opposite More Than Lofts is being purged of its bad old (two month old) broken stone to have nice new replacement stone put in. This of course means closing off half of Central Road with temporary lights and possibly more money from the OLF fund to pay for it (No doubt it will be called the contingency fund) unless they are insured against failing to read the engineer's report properly.

The original had broken in both places where vehicle tyres have been driving over them. The crossing close to Balmoral Road has fared similarly.

So enjoy the additional traffic while this particular issue is fixed. Let's hope this time is stays fixed.

6
COMMENTS (Add Yours Now!):

and by looking at it, the same mistakes are being made with regard to curb stone joints as the first installation. Curb stone joints should not be placed in / on the wheel tracks of cars / busses as this is what causes the problem in the first place. Constant running over a joint line. A full length curb stone should be centralised on the average car/bus wheel base so that the edges are not constantly run over, thus causing them to break.

It may be of interest to residents to know that the original plans envisaged the curbs at the same level as the road, rather than raised above it (which looks to be cause of the problem). More than one of the local residents has asked Sutton Council's Outer London Fund team why they had changed the original plan, to which they insisted they had not changed and the stonework was not raised above the road. [Well it clearly is and heavily loaded vehicles hitting the edges of the stonework is what's causing them to disintegrate. Standing nest to the 'crossing', you can both see and literally hear the impact of wheels hitting the edges of the stone].

Personally, I think a 2 metre wide strip of red paint, sandwiched between two thin lines of grey paint would have produced the same result, but without the inconvenience and cost of burrowing into the road, laying bricks in it. An surely would have avoided having to repeat the process later, using the same flawed idea that didn't work first time around!

Also, these 'fake' crossings aren't 'real' crossings - some cars stop... others don't (and don't expect the ones in front to do so). More than once, I've seen a driver brake to allow a pedestrian to cross, and the car behind have to emergency stop, to avoid ploughing into the unexpectedly stopping car in front. And it doesn't help that these 'fake' crossings are on a bend either.

The result of these 'fake' crossings is much confusion: Sooner or later, a vehicle is going to plough into the rear of another, which in turn is going to plough into a pedestrian. And it's really not hard to envisage a lawyer claiming that Sutton Council's 'fake' crossings contributed much to the accident and their client's injuries. Although, as they're not even sure about their own designs, I doubt Sutton Council's team have thought this through.

I would play devils advocate and say that it would be helpful if pedestrians and drivers alike knew that in this country there is only one type of pedestrian crossing (sans traffic lights) where drivers are required to stop, and that is a zebra crossing which is clearly marked by white stripes and Belisha beacons. Full stop.

Furthermore, I would also argue that if a vehicle had to perform an 'emergency stop' behind another which had slowed or stopped to allow pedestrians to cross, then they are travelling too close to the vehicle in front, or simply not paying enough attention. Central Road is not a motorway, and hence vehicles stopping on this road should be expected.

The crossings encourage pedestrians to cross the busy road at designated safe spots which have pedestrian 'refuges', to avoid people running across the road at random and unsafe places. I know that I am grateful for them when crossing with my daughter.

As for the construction of the crossings - couldn't agree more, the way the various types of stones are laid they are bound to break up over time. The poster below hit the nail on the head that the joints between the long grey curbstones are positioned in the path of the vehicle's tyres as they drive over them, a mistake which they appear to be repeating the second time round!

I rather think you are missing that these are not official crossings and drivers are under no obligation to stop. If you walk in front out of a car on this bit of Central Road, and it hits you, it is your fault for walking out in front of a car, in an unsafe place, at an unsafe time.

I agree that (literally in the black and white sense) it should be a zebra crossing, - or not a crossing at all! Creating this artificial grey area like these is causing confusion and creating the potential for accidents (and thereby opening the door to costly claims - justified or otherwise).

I agree - I've experienced people not understanding these 'fake' crossings, as a driver and pedestrian now. Have had cars slam their brakes on to let me cross while I was waiting for a gap in the traffic, and also had someone with a baby in a pushchair actually step out into the road in front of me, whilst I was turning out of St Philips Avenue, as if they were on a zebra crossing. I hope no serious incidents happen... telling someone they've misunderstood the rules of the road is all a bit moot if there's an injury or worse at one of these 'crossings'.

Worcester Park, Surrey, is a town in the London Borough Of Sutton, in South West London. Covering the KT4 postcode area, its neighbouring towns are Cheam, North Cheam, Old Malden, Motspur Park, Malden Manor and New Malden. Visit the Worcester Park Blog for the latest local news in Worcester Park, along with opinion, gossip, local politics, restaurant reviews, pub reviews, news on accidents, traffic jams, high street shopping, incidents, landslides and everything else that goes on in and around Worcester Park!.